A series of screenshots appeared on popular Facebook page Red London last week showing reference to a “disturbing” discussion which took place at the Alliance for Workers Liberty Conference in 2003.

The resolution entitled “Paedophilia and Child Porn” was swiftly removed from their website and replaced a few days later. There is no way to know if the newly uploaded resolution, which itself details edits to be made, is the same as the one that was removed.

I spoke to Daniel Randall via Facebook who was outraged at the insinuation that the removed material seemed to offer some level of defence to child predators, but did admit that the resolution was along the lines of a seperate article entitled “Paedophiles: How to combine freedom and protection” posted by the same author on the same day.

The article in question makes some very concerning statements, and it is for the following reasons that I do not believe, if what Daniel Randall says is true (and I have no reason to doubt him), that the current resolution reflects the removed one.

Firstly, it is concerning that the author defends their links to, and legal defence of, four members of the Paedophile Information Exchange – which is as bad as it sounds. An organisation which defended paedophiles as sexual educators and champions of children’s rights, whose members were open about their abuse of minors.

The author goes on to explain the basis of the defence, which was that the sexual abuse of children was in fact liberating for the victim.

Here we have a reference to previous conferences (wether AWL or PIE is not obvious – worrying in itself) where paedophiles attended accompanied by children. This is seemingly excused with the statement “those were very different times” and the following:

The article goes on to discuss the morality of child pornography. It says that rather than a “book burning” exercise – which is understood to mean the eradication of any tolerance of child pornography, real or implied, we should tackle the issue:

What is most concerning here is that the vicious and destructive abuse of children is dismissed as “bad ideology.”

This is an extremely dangerous simplification and allows room for “interpretation” of predatory behaviour.

The piece then suggests that the creation and distribution of “simulated” child porn is a viable solution to Paedophilia:

What the article fails to grasp is that paedophilia is a vile and I inhumane corruption. It is not in any way, shape or form a viable sexual preference, and should never be promoted as such. This can only lead to the encouraged abuse of children.

As stated, if the resolution did resemble the findings of this article as I was told, it is worrying not only that this line was agreed upon and published, but that in the thirteen years since there has apparently been no public retraction or apology for this.

There is no published demonstration of understanding of the issue and where it has been misinterpreted, or an explanation of how this has been rectified on the same scale that it was first resolved.

It would appear that instead it has been papered over with rewrites and outrageous denial.

After reading this initial article I found further cause for concern. A seperate piece published in 2010 seems in part to follow a similar vein.

Here we see the author suggesting that the pair of children who brutally sexually assaulted and murdered toddler Jamie Bulger in 1993, should not have been made to sign the sex offenders register:

What is particularly alarming is that this article was published just three months after Jon Venables was re-arrested on child pornography charges.

He was still on remand at this time, and was sentenced two months later for possessing a horde of child porn and also posing as a mother willing to “rent out” her child to paedophiles online.

The fact is that while more work should be done to find the root of what causes some children to abuse others, and to attempt to rehabilitate them, the removal of these measures which protect would-be victims only excuses the abuse and puts children at risk. The suggestion that it is not in the public interest while such a case is ongoing is repellant to say the least.

The conclusions drawn from these articles I find deeply disturbing and alarming. I would hope that the Alliance for Workers Liberty would rectify their position immediately and explain how a socialist organisation came to support these abhorrent views in the first place. I’m afraid “those were different times, we knew no better” simply will not do.